Update, Tuesday, Dec. 11: Bro. Diogenes continues to update the story he tells here, providing names of those affected by the tyrannical acts of past grand masters in Arkansas. Be sure to read his updates in the comments section following this article.Recently in the comments section of an article on The Burning Taper, a discussion has begun over whether grand masters have the legal authority to expel a brother without due process and a Masonic trial.
That such expulsions have taken place is without question. Witness recent events in Georgia and West Virginia.
But are these expulsions Masonically lawful or legal?
Bros. Gregg Hall and Theron Dunn were quick to jump on the "of course it's legal!" bandwagon, citing Georgia Code to prove that a grand master has authority to expel without trial. It's a bit amusing to have two brothers from California citing Georgia Masonic Code as if they're powdered-wig barristers, but they're welcome to their "considered opinions." After all, they've already proven to be experts on civil, criminal and Masonic law in Ohio.
In their pleadings in the court of public opinion, though, they confuse a grand master with a grand lodge.
The following guest editorial was written by a brother from Arkansas, who prefers to remain anonymous.
* * *
1-103 — Authority — The Grand Lodge is hereby declared the highest legitimate source of Masonic authority...
77-110 — Grand Lodge may Expel — The Grand Lodge may on its own motion expel any Georgia Mason, though not a member of its body and with or without the recommendation of the Constituent Lodge.
-----------------------------------------------
The people posting the information above are (intentionally or unintentionally) confusing the "Grand Lodge" with the "Grand Master."
The "Grand Lodge" is a GROUP. Typically, it convenes once each year, and consists of the "elected" Grand Master, Grand Wardens, Grand Deacons, and other grand officers. Depending on the jurisdiction, it may also include all active Worshipful Masters and principal officers of blue lodges in the jurisdiction, all Past Masters, all Grand Lodge committee members, etc..
The Grand Master is one man, who is the chief executive officer of the "Grand Lodge."
Unfortunately, in my home state of Arkansas, recent Grand Masters have endeavored to browbeat the craft into submission. When resolutions have been proposed for consideration at the annual Grand Lodge sessions, Grand Masters who oppose those resolutions have simply declared them "un-Masonic," and denied the members of the Grand Lodge an opportunity to vote.
In another notable instance, a Grand Master denied the assembled members of the Grand Lodge the right to vote on a candidate for Grand Lodge office. At the annual session of the Grand Lodge in February, 2005, Past Grand Master Arthur "Buddy" Mhoon (now deceased) attempted to nominate one of our state's most senior and respected brothers for Grand Master. The presiding Grand Master rapped him down, however, and told him he wouldn't accept that nomination, which was in opposition to his own handpicked successor.
When Masons here have expressed dismay and/or opposition to their Grand Master's actions, recent Grand Masters have simply declared those Masons "suspended pending trial," then appointed Grand Lodge "trial committees" composed of their closest friends to "try" the wrongfully accused brothers.
Trials in the lodges of the accused are not permitted, but are instead convened at the Grand Lodge offices, where only invited witnesses are allowed to attend, and crowds of ordinary Masons have been turned away at the door with threats of trespassing charges. Such trials can't be held on any "degree" of Masonry, because the accused have already been suspended, and therefore aren't entitled to attend "regular" lodge functions. Needless to say, no one has ever been acquitted under those circumstances, and never will be.
Arkansas Masonic law specifically says that "every man is to be presumed innocent until proven to be guilty," and the mere fact that charges are filed, does not deprive a brother of any of his Masonic rights or privileges. "No brother," it says "can be declared suspended or expelled" prior to Masonic trial, but that's happened more than 20 times in the last four or five years, and the only people who've tried to stand up for what's right, have become the newest names on the list.
If a significant number of Masons who perceive the wrongs would rally behind those who are persecuted, the situation would immediately change, but we've all forgotten the lesson of Grand Master Hiram Abiff, and courage within our fraternity is about as rare as it is among wildebeests facing lions on the African Serengetti.
God help us — we've become a fraternity of sheep led by wolves, "democratically" deciding on what to have for dinner. It's a sad, sad situation, with very little hope of remedy.
— Diogenes
Masons | Masonic Trial | Grand Masters | Freemasonry | Grand Lodge of Georgia | Burning Taper | BurningTaper.com
"If a significant number of Masons who perceive the wrongs would rally behind those who are persecuted, the situation would immediately change, but we've all forgotten the lesson of Grand Master Hiram Abiff, and courage within our fraternity is about as rare as it is among wildebeests facing lions on the African Serengetti."
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly right. If Masons stand against the GL in significant numbers, the GL will lose. If they do not stand up, it may not be because they disagree with the GL. Whatever their motives is not for me to decide. I do not see their hearts or from whence they have traveled. I have seen the best laid plans of the GL fail because the brethren at large did not agree. I have also seen the GL succeed because the brethren agreed with them.
I do wish we could stop maligning our animal friends, however. A wildebeest is a magnificent creature, and a lion can be just as cowardly by taking on only the sickest, feeblest, and youngest available. A predator always goes for the weakest. It seems cowardly, but that would be unfair to judge the cowardly lion so harshly. It needs to eat too!
"Grand Masters who oppose those resolutions have simply declared them 'un-Masonic'..."
ReplyDeleteAs above, so below. This is, after all, the new American Way. When someone disagrees or dissents, call them "un-American," or even "traitor."
"...the only people who've tried to stand up for what's right, have become the newest names on the list."
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!
("The Mikado" - Gilbert and Sullivan)
Well, since the Grand Lodge determines the interpretation of the constitution, and their interpretation is that the Grand Master, part of the grand lodge, can expel someone out of hand, apparently other opinions do not matter.
ReplyDeleteThis is akin to the folks that declare personal income tax in the United States as illegal because... whatever interpretation of the day. The COURTS, however, being empowered by the constitution to interpret the law, have unanimously held personal income tax to be legal. Other opinions not withstanding.
It is the same in this case. Br. Widow's Son, reading the same text I read, has interpreted the rule to NOT apply to the Grand Master. The actual Grand Master's of Georgia have held the opposite, and in the absence of arguments (by Georgia Masons) the interpretation of the rule stands, and the Grand Master is a part of the Grand Lodge and can expel at will.
Now, please do not interpret my statements above as approval of those actions. I have repeatedly stated, as has Gregg, that is too much power for one man to have.
So, misstating my and Br. Gregg's opinion is disingenuous at best. We have both stated that the law is what it is, and have both noted that it is too much power for one man to have without some kind of balance. In California, for instance, between sessions of the Grand Lodge, the Grand Master can act within the constitution of the Grand Lodge, and must get a vote of approval on all actions and edicts that he issues from the grand lodge at the next communication.
I have always stated that Br. Jeff should have faced a trial rather than being summarily "excommunicated" by one man. I do not "support" the action of the grand master, I only note that what he did was legal, according to the constitution of that state.
Please do not put words in my mouth that I have clearly stated otherwise.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor me it's not so much a question of whether it's Masonically legal, but whether or not it is moral and just.
ReplyDeleteIf it is immoral and unjust then it should be forbidden because Freemasons are supposed to be both moral and just.
One would wonder if a way to deal with this is to put the Past Grand Masters on trial. I know of a number of jurisdictions whose Masonic Law does not permit a sitting Grand Master from being put on trial, but it is explicitly permitted to bring Masonic charges on a Past Grand Master for alleged offenses committed during his time in office.
ReplyDeletePotential offenses: violation of Masonic Law in relation to not permitting brethren to vote on proposed legislation; violation of Masonic Law in relation to "erasing" members on sighte without a trial.
It may take several successive years to do this before it works. However, do it enough times, and the message will get through.
Another tack to take, along with the above: legislation that explicitly limits the authority of a Grand Master. I've been off my log recently because of travel; I will have sample legislation on my site by the end of the week, I hope.
"For me it's not so much a question of whether it's Masonically legal, but whether or not it is moral and just.
ReplyDeleteIf it is immoral and unjust then it should be forbidden because Freemasons are supposed to be both moral and just."
Absolutely. How to determine that is better left to those who are more informed as to the details, as the details presented here are fairly sketchy. Why was it assumed the brother's actions were un-Masonic? Were they un-Masonic? What precisely were those actions? Did the individual lodges as a whole agree with said actions by the GM? Did the GL? None of these have yet been addressed. As was brought forward, it was unfair to judge Halcyon without all the facts. Is it not just as unjust to judge the GM without all the facts?
Howard Roark said...
ReplyDeleteFor me it's not so much a question of whether it's Masonically legal, but whether or not it is moral and just.
If it is immoral and unjust then it should be forbidden because Freemasons are supposed to be both moral and just.
Monday, December 10, 2007 3:17:00 PM
end quote
Roark,
I agree with this statement 100%. The Brethern of GA should make the appropriate changes to their code to prevent this from happening again.
"I agree with this statement 100%. The Brethern of GA should make the appropriate changes to their code to prevent this from happening again."
ReplyDeleteIf it is unjust, so mote it be.
I think a lot of comments missed the point of the article. Grand Lodges can do many things by a vote of the Grand Lodge. A VOTE!!! One man, alone, on his own without the authority granted to him to represent the Grand Lodge ( by a majoority vote) does not represent the Grand Lodge by himself, he represents just himself even if he is Grand Masteer - in most jurisdictions. Grand Lodge in most jurisdictions is a democratic voting body not the dictatorship of one Officer.
ReplyDeleteThis has never been the case in our jurisdiction so far as it has been presented to my knowledge or observation.
ReplyDeleteAs for those things being legal or not, I don´t know how it goes in the States but I´m sure the same goes as in Spain: one should not be expelled from an Association with which one´s in good standing without a reason.
ReplyDeleteI can actually tell you about some brothers from the Grand Lodge of Spain who seized the "profane" tribunals regarding an unjustified expelling: well, the Grand Lodge had to readmit them!
"A Traveller to the East" said:
ReplyDelete"One would wonder if a way to deal with this is to put the Past Grand Masters on trial."
That was attempted in Arkansas, in 2004. The regularly elected Grand Master that year died just 4 days into his term of office, and the Deputy Grand Master became the Acting Grand Master.
Arkansas Masonic law states: "If the Grand Master shall die or [move out of state], the Deputy Grand Master shall succeed." Unfortunately, the Deputy Grand Master refused to be installed as Grand Master, but instead, created an entirely new title, styling himself as the "Deputy Grand Master, Presiding."
Using that title, he exercised all the powers expressly reserved for the Grand Master (such as granting dispensations, etc.). Speculation is that he wanted to serve the remainder of his predecessor's term, then serve a full term of his own, thereby effectively being Grand Master for two years instead of one, but his actual reasons remain known only to him.
Within a few weeks of creating the title "Deputy Grand Master, Presiding," the officer in question was fired from his job for sexual harassment, an offense that was particularly heinous as he was the second-in-command of the Arkansas Highway Police.
A few months later, as pressure mounted, he finally agreed to be installed as Grand Master, but then took the unprecedented and Masonically illegal step of promoting each subordinate Grand Lodge officer one step, and appointing a new Grand Junior Deacon to fill the newly vacated position at the end of the line.
With that, the only officers in the Grand Lodge of Arkansas who remained in their elected positions, were the Grand Secretary and Grand Treasurer. A few months later, the Grand Master ordered the replacement of another Grand officer, and advanced the remaining ones another step, again appointing another new Grand Junior Deacon. Sadly, the officer who was replaced subsequently committed suicide.
The Grand Master's reputation in the Arkansas law enforcement community proved to be so bad that he had difficulty finding another job. After months of unemployment, he finally found a job teaching criminal justice at a university in Texas, so he sold his home in Arkansas and moved there. Arkansas Masonic law says that moving out of state automatically disqualifies a Grand Master from office, but repeated calls for his resignation were met with dismissive indignation.
Eventually, the majority of the craft familiar with the Grand Master's actions, strongly felt that something had to be done, and one notable Past Grand Master (still living) even began advising a group of concerned brethren about how to have the Grand Master removed from office and tried for un-Masonic conduct.
Arkansas Masonic law says that such action against a Grand Master can only be taken with the consent of the majority of the members of the Committee on Masonic Law and Usage, whose membership is restricted exclusively to the living Past Grand Masters. Several brethren therefore traveled to all corners of the state seeking permission from those brothers, and their efforts were surprisingly successful.
At the time, 20 Past Grand Masters were still living, 10 of whom signed a document giving their consent to charge the Grand Master with un-Masonic conduct, while 1 composed a statement saying he believed something needed to be done, but that the committee needed to meet to address the issue. Only 9 refused to sign, one of whom was (and still is) the Grand Secretary, and was shortly thereafter elected chairman of the Conference of Grand Masters of North America.
As soon as the Grand Secretary informed the Grand Master of the effort to bring charges against him, he responded by calling a special meeting of the Committee on Masonic Law and Usage. The Past Grand Master who orchestrated the effort to bring the Grand Master to trial, advised the brethren seeking charges to produce a formal complaint, and submit a sealed copy of it to the chairman of the committee.
When the committee convened, a few of the older members in frail health declined to attend. They believed their votes to proceed to trial had been firmly expressed by their signatures calling for that action, and they didn't see any need to subject themselves to the additional stress of attending the meeting. Much to their surprise, however, the Grand Master appointed one of his supporters to serve as "chairman," and too few of the older Past Grand Masters were present to successfully challenge the point.
Arkansas Masonic law says that the most senior Past Grand Master is to be the chairman of the Committee on Masonic Law and Usage, but that particular brother had asked another to read a committee report at the previous Grand Lodge session, and the Grand Master and his supporters declared that he'd willingly relinquished his chairmanship.
The Grand Master and his "entourage" then lectured the committee for nearly two hours before leaving them to their deliberations. The newly named "chairman" then removed the "charges" from their sealed envelope, glanced at them briefly, then returned them to the envelope without showing them to any other member. He then called for a "vote of confidence" in the Grand Master, and that vote was sustained by a majority of the members present. The written votes of the Past Grand Masters who were not in attendance, but wanted the Grand Master to stand trial, were not counted.
The committee was then dismissed, and the few Past Grand Masters who expressed their displeasure, were threatened with charges of un-Masonic conduct. The Grand Master claimed that the Committee on Masonic Law and Usage only exists when convened as such, either at his order or during regular Grand Lodge sessions, and that the members individual opinions carry no power or authority except when the committee is convened.
Immediately after surviving the dubious "vote," the Grand Master declared the brethren who sought charges against him "suspended pending trial on charges of un-Masonic conduct." Each was charged with "conspiracy to subvert the authority of the Grand Lodge," and the Grand Master himself appointed trial committees and prosecutors to "try" the brethren.
The so-called "Masonic trials" were held in a back room of the Grand Lodge offices, and only invited witnesses were allowed to attend. On one occasion, a group of about 20 brethren traveled to witness the event, but were turned away by the Grand Master, who personally denied them entry into the building and threatened to have them arrested for trespassing.
One of the accused brethren had a heart attack while waiting to testify at his trial, and had to be rushed to a hospital for emergency surgery. A brother connected with the administration of that trial showed the stricken brother a vial of nitroglycerin tablets, but refused to give him any. When paramedics arrived, they administered the needed nitroglycerin and rushed the brother to a local veterans' hospital, but while he was in surgery, the members of his trial committee proceeded to "try" him in absentia, without representation, and expelled him for life.
I know this sounds like something someone with a wild imagination would make up, but it actually happened. The abuses have been less obvious in recent years, but the people who were in authority then, remain in authority now, while the wrongs committed against the brothers who tried to stand up for what's obviously right, have never been undone.
"A Traveller to the East" said:
"Another tack to take, along with the above, [would be to propose] legislation that explicitly limits the authority of a Grand Master. I've been off my log recently because of travel; I will have sample legislation on my site by the end of the week, I hope."
That's another good idea, but it's already been tried here as well. The blue lodges in Arkansas submitted 34 resolutions for consideration at the Grand Lodge session following the events described above, but some were intimidated into withdrawing their resolutions under threat that their charters would be arrested before Grand Lodge convened.
About 20 resolutions actually made it to Grand Lodge that year, but the ones that would have limited the power of the Grand Master, were summarily declared to be "out of order" or "un-Masonic" by the Grand Master, who didn't allow votes or discussion about them. In some instances, the authors of those resolutions were suspended and/or expelled within the following months, and remain suspended and/or expelled to this day.
When subjects such as the "trials" of members are reviewed during the annual Grand Lodge sessions, those reviews are always presented in the form of "committee reports." As soon as a report is presented, a motion is made by a Grand Lodge member to "accept" it, and another Grand Lodge member quickly seconds the motion.
The presiding officer (usually the Grand Master or a Past Grand Master) then calls for a vote, and any brethren who attempt to oppose the motion are told that they aren't voting to approve the decision, only to accept the committee report. Of course, there's really no alternative but to "accept" a report, and that's what the majority of delegates usually do.
Needless to say, the subjects of the committee reports are never mentioned again, and at the end of the two-day session, if anyone still remembers and inquires about them, they're told that the decisions were voted on and approved the previous day.
It's a "shell game" that goes on like that year after year, but because the majority of ordinary Masons don't attend Grand Lodge unless they have the misfortune of being their lodge's official delegate for the year, very few ever notice the way they're manipulated.
In the Grand Jurisdiction of Arkansas, the will of the craft has been disregarded and circumvented for decades. There's no way to address the issue because the "powers that be" are holding all the cards, and they simply silence anyone who tries to stand up for what's right.
No legislation to reform the Grand Lodge can ever be enacted when no discussion or vote is allowed on it, but in practical reality, it wouldn't matter anyway as the existing laws are routinely disregarded with impunity. Enacting more laws would merely be an exercise in futility without any higher authority to enforce those laws.
I hope things are different in other grand jurisdictions, but I thought they were different here as well, until I found out I simply wasn't familiar enough with the workings of the Grand Lodge to know what really goes on there.
So what about it, Gregg, Theron, Art, and other Grand Lodge supporters? Do you guys support such obvious wrongs and abuses, or if not, what would you recommend to do "within the system" that hasn't already been tried?
Does this help you understand the frustrations of Masons in many jurisdictions who've lost faith in their Grand Lodges, and desire to improve their situations by starting over?
— Diogenes
"I know this sounds like something someone with a wild imagination would make up, but it actually happened."
ReplyDeleteI do think you believe this happened, but the evidence needs to be more substantial before a 'conviction' is handed out. Would you not require this in defense of your brothers? If you would not, you are as bad as the GL officers you accuse are purported to be.
IF this happened in our lodge and was substantiated, the GL officer would be removed from the roles. It's too bad other groups refuse to remove someone who denies a brother needed medicine. That seems unconscionable, but the rules of the G.O. do not appear to be so. If I am incorrect, please give the information. Would this person that denied medicine to his ailing brother really not be removed by the G.O.? I would like to think this isn't true.
More of this story doesn't ring true. If ONE brother held out a bottle of pills, who called the paramedics and saved his life? It MUST have been a GL officer as there were purportedly no others there. It would make sense to give him the pills if you were trying to save his life, which apparently the GL individuals who called the paramedic were trying to do. It really sounds like a movie I've seen, and until more information is available, it seems that a GL individual, or someone connected, saved his life. It makes little sense that this individual would have witnessed the display of heart pills and not retrieved them, but perhaps the individual did not see the purported action.
ReplyDeleteTaking your story at face value. Here is what I would say. I do not have a copy of the AK code book, but I would be surprised if there is no way to get the "line" kicked out at the anuall convention. But again, it would require the Majority of those present.
ReplyDeleteBarring that, again if the majority felt that way and had proof they could demit, form a new GL of AK and present that proof to the other 50 GL's in the US for transfer of recognition to the new body based on the actions of the present Grand line...
But again, this is all speculation based on taking your story at face value.
how did this article move you to ask a question regarding the G.O.?
ReplyDeleteBro AA, are you obsessed with the G.O. and see it in every article and then relate every comment back to the G.O.?
Light please
This seems, perhaps erroneously on my part, to refer to the G.O.
ReplyDelete"Does this help you understand the frustrations of Masons in many jurisdictions who've lost faith in their Grand Lodges, and desire to improve their situations by starting over?"
It is just a question. It has been asked over and over again, but never directly answered. Light please.
Bro. A.A.:
ReplyDeleteThere is a hell of a lot more going on in American Freemasonry, both good and bad, than events concerning GOUSA.
I assure you, the guest editorialist Diogenes is not a part of or affiliated with GOUSA. The events he describes occurred long before the formation of GOUSA, or even UGLA.
Rather than focus on the point of his question "Does this help you understand the frustrations of Masons in many jurisdictions who've lost faith in their Grand Lodges, and desire to improve their situations by starting over?", you've chosen to see GOUSA written all over his phrase "starting over."
The question remains: Does the article help you understand the many frustrations of Masons who have lost faith in their grand lodge leadership?
— W.S.
Indeed! Boy, talk about simple questions that are never directly answered.
ReplyDelete"The question remains: Does the article help you understand the many frustrations of Masons who have lost faith in their grand lodge leadership?"
ReplyDeleteNo, as I already understood before from the many articles posted here.
Does that help you understand the many frustrations of Masons who have NOT faith in their grand lodge leadership? Of course, a direct answer to a direct question is STILL not expected.
"Indeed! Boy, talk about simple questions that are never directly answered."
ReplyDeleteNobody asked me directly, so I did not answer it directly. Besides, it seems answering questions directly just isn't done here.
Brother Dunn made this statement, and it sums up nicely my feelings. I'll repost it:
ReplyDelete"If everyone tried to tell me my masonry wasn't good or valuable I guess I might get irritated too... oh, wait, that's what's going on here..."
Apologies if that seems 'erratic'. I tried to keep it simple.
Anagram Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"More of this story doesn't ring true. If ONE brother held out a bottle of pills, who called the paramedics and saved his life? It MUST have been a GL officer as there were purportedly no others there."
There were a few other brothers present who weren't connected with the Grand Lodge, but were there on trial themselves, charged with "conspiracy to subvert the authority of the Grand Lodge."
The brother who suffered the heart attack was Otis D. Burtcher, a retired US Marine, who is a Past Master and "life member" of Adoniram Lodge in Little Rock. The brother who came to his aid and called the paramedics, was Millard Wagner, another Past Master and "life member" of Adoniram Lodge.
I won't divulge the name of the "brother" who showed the others the nitroglycerin tablets, then refused to give them any, but he justified his actions by saying: "I'd better not do that — I'm not a doctor." Brother Millard implored: "Then give me the pills and I'll give them to him," but the refusal was maintained.
Perhaps other readers who know these brothers will comment. I know that brother Burtcher occasionally reads this blog, but I don't believe brother Millard owns a computer. I assure you that those brothers are real people, who actually lived through the experiences described above. Both were expelled, and remain expelled today, although I am told they're now very active in the Independent Order of Odd Fellows.
Gregg said:
"I would be surprised if there is no way to get the 'line' kicked out at the [annual] convention.... Barring that... they could demit, form a new GL of [AR]... But again, this is all speculation based on taking your story at face value."
The "story" above is 100% accurate, down to the last detail. Why would I waste my time and everyone else's here by making up such an intricate lie, which could easily be refuted if it wasn't true?
At any rate, there's no way to get the "line" kicked out, or even an individual member of it kicked out, when the members of that "line" won't let anyone else address the issue at Grand Lodge. They outright lie to brethren who aren't there to witness the events for themselves, and they make sure their "story" is the only one that's widely circulated.
They control the only real medium of communication between the lodges (Grand Lodge), and they control what's said through that medium. Sadly, a lot of Masons even within the state don't know what's going on, and many of the ones who do, prefer to turn a blind eye rather than admitting how bad their fraternity has really become.
As for "dimits" (not "demits"), there seems to be a lot of confusion about that subject. I don't know about other grand jurisdictions, but here in Arkansas, a "dimit" does NOT relieve a brother of ANY of his Masonic obligations, including the obligation to "obey" all Grand Lodge rules, and all Grand Master's directives.
Furthermore, there is no way to honorably resign from the "regular" Masonic fraternity in Arkansas. The closest thing is a "self expulsion" form provided by the Grand Secretary, which states that the person signing it voluntarily expels himself from Masonry for life, without the possibility of appeal. At the moment, I don't have a copy of that form, but perhaps someone who does will post it.
— Diogenes
Thank you for the information, Diogenes. It clarifies much, and I sincerely regret this event. I cannot say precisely what this brother was thinking or his intentions. If ill rather than merely misguided, that is truly sad. Thank you for your reply.
ReplyDeleteBrother Diogenes.
ReplyDeleteFirst off I appologize for my spelling and/or typo errors, I am self admitted as the worlds worst speller.
Anyway, I wasn't disputing your story, I was saying that I would take it at face value and not look into it to determine truth, I meant nothing derogitory by stating it, simply what I said that I was taking it at face value.
But I still maintain that if the majority felt that the GL was currupt it can be overthrown, regardless of the Obiigation.
The founding fathers that were masons commited treason against their country in contravention to the obigation, and because they prevaled, we concider them to be patriots of the highest order and celebrate them.
Something about "When in the course of human events...." comes to mind.
But I do believe that it will take a majority of masons to accomplish this if it is to be done.
"But I still maintain that if the majority felt that the GL was corrupt it can be overthrown, regardless of the Obligation."
ReplyDeleteI think that this is absolutely true. It is so far beyond my experience in Freemasonry, I wish to have clear information before forming an opinion.
I think a GL that has this much hubris, if the interpretation of the story is true, is doomed to fall. A GL that cannot act on the square with the regular brethren is NOT peopled by worthy brethren, in my opinion, and deserves to fail. I still am unsure of how many brethren disagree with the GLs decisions on these matters.
Vigilence Bro Diogenes
ReplyDeleteThoughts and prayers.
Vigilance is good advice for all, brothers. Offering thoughts and prayers is also wise. I know it was not directed at me, but I will borrow the good thoughts with the assumption that nobody will mind.
ReplyDeleteGregg said:
ReplyDelete"I still maintain that if the majority felt that the GL was corrupt it can be overthrown."
The problem is that tiny little word, "IF."
The reality is that most Masons have no idea what's going on in their own blue lodges, let alone their Grand Lodges, and many of the ones who do, are either too afraid of retribution to express their disapproval, or they're so ashamed that they'd rather sweep the truth under a rug, than have anyone else find out about it.
As a case in point, consider the information about the Grand Lodge of Arkansas posted above. This isn't the first time I've written about that here, yet judging by the reactions, it's obvious that very few are aware of what's been going on. Consider that the readers here include some of the best-informed Masons in the country, and perhaps the problem of informing the craft at large will be more easily understandable.
Shortly before he got kicked out, brother O. D. Burtcher (mentioned above) made his best effort to inform Arkansas Masons about some of the corruption he'd seen. He copied unjust edicts and the sections of Masonic law with which they conflict, and he mailed packets to more than 300 lodges in the state. As I recall, the packets consisted of about 20 pages, which cost about 7 cents each, and he had to buy 300 large envelopes, as well as pay the postage.
At 7 cents per copy, 300 sets of 20 pages each, would have cost about $420. Add to that the cost of 300 large envelopes at perhaps 15 cents each ($45), and postage at about $1 per packet, and you can easily see that he (and perhaps a few others) spent about $750 in an effort to "whisper good council" in the ears of Arkansas brethren.
A few packets were returned for various reasons, but the majority seem to have been delivered to lodges across the state. Unfortunately, the tiny percentage who bothered to investigate the issues, were instructed by the Grand Secretary's office to file those packets in their "circular files," and not mention them again.
So, what's the answer? It's virtually impossible to mail every Mason in the state directly, because the postage alone would easily reach 5 figures (20k Masons x $0.50 each = $10k), not to mention the logistical problems of obtaining the needed addresses, and managing a bulk mailing to 20,000 individuals.
The traditional way that Masons here have learned Masonic news from other parts of the state, has been through Grand Lodge functions, such as District Deputy Grand Master's conferences and the annual Grand Lodge sessions. At those, however, Grand Lodge officials say whatever fits the occasion, with no regard for the truth, and they make sure that anyone who asks pointed questions, isn't around long enough to do it again.
"Peace and harmony" among the craft is maintained like a finely manicured lawn; the Grand Lodge simply mows down anyone who tries to stand up, and they do it with such regularity that no one ever gets a chance to seriously question their behavior.
Today, more Masons are active on the Internet than ever before, and it's become an important venue for information that can't be easily controlled. Of course, when brothers like Tim Bryce from Florida start making too many waves, their Grand Lodges simply order them to shut up, or face expulsion. That's undoubtedly the reason that most brothers who expose Masonic corruption, prefer to do so anonymously.
A few years ago, a brother here questioned the Grand Master's right to restrict the craft's freedom of speech. The Grand Master replied: "As a citizen of the United States, you have an absolute right to say anything you want to, you just can't exercise that right and remain a member of the Masonic fraternity."
Sadly, that's really what it all boils down to. Masons in positions of authority have been doing things they know are wrong, and they don't want to be exposed. If they were proud of their actions, they'd hire advertising agencies to publicize them, but when Grand Lodges tell brothers to shut up or face expulsion, it's obvious they want to silence the truth.
Why is that obvious? Because lies don't need to be silenced, they can simply be exposed, and the brothers responsible for them kicked out through fair and open trials.
When that doesn't happen, the sad truth is all too obvious.
-- Diogenes
"The reality is that most Masons have no idea what's going on in their own blue lodges, let alone their Grand Lodges, and many of the ones who do, are either too afraid of retribution to express their disapproval, or they're so ashamed that they'd rather sweep the truth under a rug, than have anyone else find out about it."
ReplyDeleteThe third option being is that some are well aware of what goes on in their Blue Lodge and aware of what goes on in their Grand Lodge and are happy with what's going on, as it does not reflect at all what is purported to go on in a handful of GLs autonomously run in other states.